To make stacking the top 2 DPS classes a not so optimal raid composition?

"Top DPS" is always a fuzzy definition since, unless the devs specifically *design* said classes around having lower DPS, you can't really always be sure that they're not going to be top tier DPS. From patch to patch, as changes are implemented, the state of DPS is going to shift as well (assuming the devs actually *change* stuff about the classes rather than just ignoring the state of balance for 6 months straight).

I've always found the design construct of "this DPS brings this buff" a bit screwy since it is, essentially, forcing arbitrary composition requirements upon the raid. Right now, the only factor you have to consider other than raw DPS is the presence of the armor debuff (i.e. Gunnery Commando or Gunslinger) which is pretty basic, and, if you're bringing a Guardian tank, you don't have to worry about it at all. If different DPS classes provide different buffs, whether they stack or not (btw, 3% +dam is worth a fair a bit more than 3% +crit, especially when you're splitting it into Force v. Tech or melee v. ranged), you're simply forcing a different compositional requirement on things. How would your 3% increase to Force damage from Sage DPS be useful if the other 3 DPS in the ops are a Gunslinger, Commando, and Vanguard? With that DPS composition, you're essentially encouraging the restriction of classes to prefer their own power source. 3% Force damage would *also* be a *lot* more useful for Sages than Guardians, Sentinels, or Shadows, since Sage DPS is *entirely* Force based whereas the other Force ACs are only partially Force based. Sages would also get absolutely nothing from the Shadow buff.

Rather than creating a construct where it's just "bring 2 Gunslingers and 2 Sentinels", it would become "bring 1 of X AC, 1 of Y AC, and 2 of Z AC", so it's really acting at cross purposes.

Honestly, I'd rather they just addressed the, now, well known DPS imbalances that exist. All DPS should deal as close to the same damage as possible within a reasonable margin of error. It's, honestly, not all that difficult, especially if you make incremental changes over time: pay attention to parses (hell, Blizzard devs regularly check the parse sites for the game to make sure they're balancing correctly) and adjust the abilities of the relevant classes by small amounts from month to month. It isn't needed to completely fix everything in a single major patch (in fact, attempting to do so is actually liable to *break* more things because you're not looking at changes as the situation evolves). Just do it over time. At the very least it'll communicate to the community that you're at least *paying attention* to DPS balance (which is, honestly, more important than creating a balanced construct in the community; lack of belief that the devs pay any attention at *all* is *horrible* for a game; people don't really want to play a game where the devs are completely ignorant of what's actually going on, but they'll happily play on that, even if it's not as well balanced, at least have devs that *show* that they're receptive to the community).

"Top DPS" is always a fuzzy definition since, unless the devs specifically *design* said classes around having lower DPS, you can't really always be sure that they're not going to be top tier DPS. From patch to patch, as changes are implemented, the state of DPS is going to shift as well (assuming the devs actually *change* stuff about the classes rather than just ignoring the state of balance for 6 months straight).

I've always found the design construct of "this DPS brings this buff" a bit screwy since it is, essentially, forcing arbitrary composition requirements upon the raid. Right now, the only factor you have to consider other than raw DPS is the presence of the armor debuff (i.e. Gunnery Commando or Gunslinger) which is pretty basic, and, if you're bringing a Guardian tank, you don't have to worry about it at all. If different DPS classes provide different buffs, whether they stack or not (btw, 3% +dam is worth a fair a bit more than 3% +crit, especially when you're splitting it into Force v. Tech or melee v. ranged), you're simply forcing a different compositional requirement on things. How would your 3% increase to Force damage from Sage DPS be useful if the other 3 DPS in the ops are a Gunslinger, Commando, and Vanguard? With that DPS composition, you're essentially encouraging the restriction of classes to prefer their own power source. 3% Force damage would *also* be a *lot* more useful for Sages than Guardians, Sentinels, or Shadows, since Sage DPS is *entirely* Force based whereas the other Force ACs are only partially Force based. Sages would also get absolutely nothing from the Shadow buff.

Rather than creating a construct where it's just "bring 2 Gunslingers and 2 Sentinels", it would become "bring 1 of X AC, 1 of Y AC, and 2 of Z AC", so it's really acting at cross purposes.

Honestly, I'd rather they just addressed the, now, well known DPS imbalances that exist. All DPS should deal as close to the same damage as possible within a reasonable margin of error. It's, honestly, not all that difficult, especially if you make incremental changes over time: pay attention to parses (hell, Blizzard devs regularly check the parse sites for the game to make sure they're balancing correctly) and adjust the abilities of the relevant classes by small amounts from month to month. It isn't needed to completely fix everything in a single major patch (in fact, attempting to do so is actually liable to *break* more things because you're not looking at changes as the situation evolves). Just do it over time. At the very least it'll communicate to the community that you're at least *paying attention* to DPS balance (which is, honestly, more important than creating a balanced construct in the community; lack of belief that the devs pay any attention at *all* is *horrible* for a game; people don't really want to play a game where the devs are completely ignorant of what's actually going on, but they'll happily play on that, even if it's not as well balanced, at least have devs that *show* that they're receptive to the community).

Well not a lot of elaboration needed on that. Great post Kit. So you would rather address the DPS imbalance and in an ideal SWTOR for you, all DPS specs would do close DPS between each other. In our current game, that would be increasing Concealment Op DPS, Sin DPS (in both specs?), and especially the full Pyro and AP Pyrotech.

Well not a lot of elaboration needed on that. Great post Kit. So you would rather address the DPS imbalance and in an ideal SWTOR for you, all DPS specs would do close DPS between each other. In our current game, that would be increasing Concealment Op DPS, Sin DPS (in both specs?), and especially the full Pyro and AP Pyrotech.

Balance is a constantly shifting target and a lot of it is derived from the arbitrarily chosen "appropriate" level of performance. In all likelihood, it would involve some reductions in the effectiveness of top tier DPS and increases to the bottom rung classes. It would also be a lot more effective if the devs looked at parses more than theory/metrics: when they say that X class is actually the best DPS in the game and it consistently averages out in the mediocre range, it would suggest that a review of their theory/metrics need to be reevaluated.

One of the biggest problems with any kind of DPS balance is working it out so that you have an appropriate level of PvP *and* PvE viability. Personally, I've always believed that it's perfectly acceptable to have one DPS spec be the PvE spec and the other be the PvP spec, if only because it allows for more efficient and effective balancing (you can explicitly control heavy burst/control in a PvP spec without worrying that it might manage too much sustained by applying resource constraints that prevent high long term sustainable DPS; PvE specs would simply manage sustained DPS without major burst outside of long ramp up constructs; there are other ways to manage it, but those are, generally, the simplest), but BW apparently disagrees (and I understand why; if a spec is either "PvP or PvE" it gets pretty boring since the options don't really exist: all PvE Shadows would be Balance and all PvP Shadows would be Balance; of course, this often happens anyways so you have to wonder what the point is).

The statements and opinions expressed on these websites are solely those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, nor are they endorsed by Bioware, LucasArts, and its licensors do not guarantee the accuracy of, and are in no way responsible for any content on these websites.

The statements and opinions expressed on these websites are solely those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, nor are they endorsed by Bioware, LucasArts, and its licensors do not guarantee the accuracy of, and are in no way responsible for any content on these websites.